No Mr. K, you seem to be with the utmost respect wishful thinking again.

You could be right. we shall see, but nothing I can see points to this at all. The RFL/SLE still retain their policies of:-

1. An even competition2. An elite competition3. A financially sound competition

Unless they are complete idiots (no need to post again you usual suspects, we get the point) they will restructure the business. The clues are there Mr. Hudgells "12 club SL" Mr. Watkins "root and branch review", Mr. Glovers "reduce the salary cap".

How many signals do you want to see what they are considering.

12 clubs will have to include Hull, Leeds, Bradford, Wakefield, Fartown, London, Wigan, Saints and Warrington, plus Toulouse and Les Catalans. These clubs represent the people who run Superleague - Moran, Hethers, Lennegan, McManus and pearson will probably get on that board of directors. It represents clubs who have been rescued by RFL/SLE and allocated managers to run them - Wakefield and Bradford, it represents the RFL's "europe wide" policy of two clubs in France and London linking the two heartlands. There is only one oddity and that is Fartown. The record is sustained heavy investment for going on 10 years and as Steve May says that will continue even if Mr, Davey were to shall we say "depart".

If we are going to have a debate about who next for SL then IMHO it COULD end up being about where is that last spot going. If the RFL had their way it'd be Wales, if the French had their way it'd be one of their clubs, if the SLE clubs had their way it'd be nobody on their doorstep.

The SL clubs are a bunch of Nimby's.

Who did I leave out of that list?

CAS - crisis meetingHKR - rich backer won't part with any more moneySALFORD - rich backer won't part with any more moneyWIDNES - rich backer vowed not to bankroll the club but to get it to break even. Work in progess

Whose left in the queue

HALIFAX - three clubs in Bradhuddersfax, no chanceLEIGH - Two clubs in Wigan - what? Third time lucky after Springfield and HighfieldFEATHERSTONE - Three clubs in "Calder"? Is Ian Claytons barmy army really going to be allowed such a triumph?SHEFFIELD - as Mr Wharing said they didn't even get a mention

If the 12 clubs thing comes off then there may be eight clubs fighting for one place. I'd give it to Fev they deserve their chance.

The fundamantal disagreements you and I have always comes down to inclusion versus exclusion. You feel that the league will go to 12 clubs and exclude the rest. Have you seen Halifax's stadium, Leigh's stadium, Featherstone,s amazing progress in recent years and ditto for Sheffield.

The permanent exclusion of these clubs from SL will spell their doom. The 12 teams left in SL will be too small a critical mass to sustain the game for long. When London fail if/when Mr Hughes has had enough and if Toulouse fail to live up to the hype, we could be down to 10 clubs and with no replacements in sight. If Bradford fail to recreate 15,000 attendances and the burden of finances and the stadium is too much for the new owner, then we would be down to nine. Maybe Sky would be happy with Saints V Wigan and Leeds v Huddersfield every two weeks as their premier attractions, but I doubt it.

There is strength in numbers but the present policies seem designed to cater to the minimum numbers necessary to operate a viable competition.

The fact that, as you allude to in your post, Mr Glover is calling for a review of the salary cap, suggests that the current levels of spending are not sustainable for many of the current SL clubs. If, as you infer, the day of the sugar daddy is over, then this situation will only get worse and even Hull, Wakefield and Huddersfield will be in trouble.

I think we have aimed for a highly paid fully professional league and it has proved a bridge to far and the financial realities are now coming home to roost.

The review of the game to which you refer might surprise you and come to that very conclusion.

The solution might be to cut our cloth to suit our circumstances and lower the salary cap or at least have the clubs not necessarily spending to the max unless they can sustain that level of investment.

This might pave the way for many of the deserving clubs on your excluded list to join the party and enable the top level of the league to expand. You know I am a firm believer in the Conference system as a way to incorporate more teams into the top tier of the game. If we spent less, we could split the Sky money more ways or even, heavens above, prise a bit more out of them.

The strength of the game is, and always has been, in towns and medium sized cities. The mega club scenario seemingly envisaged for RL is just not possible. Soccer has cornered the market in the big cities. The game needs to stick with it's historical strengths and nurture as many of it's strongholds as possible, not marginalise and kill them off.

The SL concept has reached a crossroads. We need to downsize the payrolls to stabilize it's very existence. At the same time we need to expand the reach of the top division both numerically in the traditional heartlands by not excluding deserving teams and geographically by expansion as and where possible.

This 10,000 average crowd thing is a fallacy. We have never been able to have numerous teams with that level of crowds ( except maybe in the post WW11 boom ) in the history of the game. The game needs to restructure and cut wages to the point whereby clubs can compete and thrive on average crowds of 5,000 and up.

The present power brokers will inevitably end up at the top but it has never been any different and occasionally the balance of power will alter and a new team will rise up to join the top table.

Oh, by the way, the review called for by Mr Watkins, included revisiting p and r. Oh, my god, the sky is falling, the sky is falling.

Anyway, in my view, if you persevere with a smaller, closed shop, SL with two or more teams in France, diminishing the British membership even more, it will end in disaster. The more clubs we can save by admitting them to the top table, then the better the long term prospects for the game will be. Contraction is a negative policy and will end in stagnation.

1. You did not know whether Keighley had a backer or not and you still don't know.

2. I think there will be no further entries, expansion or not to SL without the money being in place.

3. You have too high a regard for the virtues of the SL movers and shakers. There is no loyalty. Money talks with these people.

4. It's you who need to wake up and smell the coffee. By the examples you have listed, many clubs presently in SL are not going to be sustainable businesses going forward. What will they do when their SL is reduced to a 4 or 5 team rump of profitable clubs.? The game is going to have to re organise at a lower financed level or die. This will allow the Sheffield's and Castleford's to compete. The present SL set up is a house of cards and unsustainable in the long term.

1. Lets put it this way a rich backer never showed up at Keighley and that is a fact. So whoever Mr. Mystery Man was ATEOTD he wasn't a backer was he.

2. What money?. SL looks to be restructuring to avoid directors loans. They won't be selling places to Championship clubs.

3. What money? SInce 1995 the RFL has wanted a smaller number of clubs with more of the resources they are getting there steadily. Championship clubs on an average of 1500 fans won't be able to buy their way in past Superleague clubs on approaching a 10,000 plus average.

4. I think you know about business, SL can restructure and cut down the losses.

Sheffield won't be able to provide a business to match any of the SL clubs they are sadly miles behind. If they go to 12 and Wakefield end up the only club in the Calder area what would happen to Cas. Clue - look at Halifax.

1. Have you seen Halifax's stadium, Leigh's stadium, Featherstone's amazing progress in recent years and ditto for Sheffield.

2. Mr Glover is calling for a review of the salary cap, suggests that the current levels of spending are not sustainable for many of the current SL clubs. If, as you infer, the day of the sugar daddy is over, then this situation will only get worse and even Hull, Wakefield and Huddersfield will be in trouble.

3. You know I am a firm believer in the Conference system as a way to incorporate more teams into the top tier of the game. If we spent less, we could split the Sky money more ways or even, heavens above, prise a bit more out of them.

4. The strength of the game is, and always has been, in towns and medium sized cities. The game needs to stick with it's historical strengths and nurture as many of it's strongholds as possible, not marginalise and kill them off.

5. The game needs to restructure and cut wages to the point whereby clubs can compete and thrive on average crowds of 5,000 and up.

1. What's your point? These stadiums and these clubs will be a credit to the Championship won't they?

2. Explain how you come to that conclusion, a restructure can include changes to SKY fund distribution, changes to salary cap etc. All you ever do is forecast the collapse of Super league, That seems to be what you want to see?

Is it?

As long as SKY pay tens of millions a year to the elite division it won't collapse. It's subsidised.

1. Lets put it this way a rich backer never showed up at Keighley and that is a fact. So whoever Mr. Mystery Man was ATEOTD he wasn't a backer was he.

2. What money?. SL looks to be restructuring to avoid directors loans. They won't be selling places to Championship clubs.

3. What money? SInce 1995 the RFL has wanted a smaller number of clubs with more of the resources they are getting there steadily. Championship clubs on an average of 1500 fans won't be able to buy their way in past Superleague clubs on approaching a 10,000 plus average.

4. I think you know about business, SL can restructure and cut down the losses.

Sheffield won't be able to provide a business to match any of the SL clubs they are sadly miles behind. If they go to 12 and Wakefield end up the only club in the Calder area what would happen to Cas. Clue - look at Halifax.

1. Keighley never got promoted, surely you remember the great volte face which denied them and Batley their place, so, indeed the backer never showed up. He wasn't going to invest in Keighley in a rump lower division competiton to whence they were banished, was he?

2. You mean downsizing to an affordable level, which will make it easier for CC clubs to compete with them.

3. I am glad you put in the word "approaching" because Castleford, Salford, Widnes, London, Wakefield, Huddersfield and Hull KR ( that's 50% of the league) arn't there yet and approaching is subjective, some are quite a way off on the approaching scale.

4. If they restructure, don't you mean downsize, then the CC clubs will instantly become more competitive vis a vis these smaller operations. As I said, money talks, it remains to be seen what each enitity can rustle up to satisfy the criteria. They would put in a team from Cape Wrath if they had the money.

3. to an affordable level, which will make it easier for CC clubs to compete with them.

1. So he wasn't a backer.

2. SL ran at 12 clubs for years. there's no downsizing.

Restructuring means £100K a season is saved using Championship clubs instead of U23's, restructuring means £2.6M SKY money saved and divvied up amongst the 12 remaining clubs, possibly more to the ones that need it, restructuring may mean a TV deal in France etc....

Even if it also meant £200K off the salary cap SL clubs would still run on £4M+ turnovers and Championship clubs would still run on less than £1M turnovers.

How on earth do you work out that some sort of parity between SL and CC is imminent?

1. What's your point? These stadiums and these clubs will be a credit to the Championship won't they?

2. Explain how you come to that conclusion, a restructure can include changes to SKY fund distribution, changes to salary cap etc. All you ever do is forecast the collapse of Super league, That seems to be what you want to see?

Is it?

As long as SKY pay tens of millions a year to the elite division it won't collapse. It's subsidised.

4. The strength of the game is it's spread throughout the country and into Wales etc

The strength of the game is it is played professionally in it's top division.

In 1995 which you want to recreate it was a regional oddity bust from top to bottom.

5. Yes the future is the past for you. What you are suggesting is the old first division

Why do you think Superleague was created?

The game was failing and set to be put to the sword by Union..................

1. My point is they deserve to be a credit to SL. That is why they have struggled so hard to get to this point, not to operate in the championships. They could operate there from Whitebank stadium..

2. SL is collapsing of it's own weight. It dosn't need any help from me. That's why they are "restructuring". I thought your argument against elevating Championship clubs to SL was because the Sky money is not enough to sustain a SL club by itself. You can't have it both ways. Either it's subsidised so teams can suceed there or it;'s not subsidised enough, so they can"t. Which way do you want to jump ?

3. Sky is a stepchild of Fox and Murdoch. They know all about the success of Conferences. They televise the NFL. You do your research and then re read their lips.

4. You are correct, the strength of the game is in the top division.The top division has which big cities in it's membership. I'll give you Leeds. Hull at the outside. The rest are towns and small cities. Tell me again about how successful league is in Wales and, moreover, which big cities these successes are based in. Cardiff erm No. Swansea, erm No, Newport, erm No. Oh sorry, I forgot the meagapoli of Bridgend and Wrexham. Maybe that's why Sheffield should be in SL, it's a big city. Oh sorry, you don't agree with that either, that's your objection on this thread.

In 1995, the game was saved, then,as now, by Murdoch and Sky. Since then we have had four expansionary failures, Paris, the two incarnations of the Crusaders and Gateshead against a solitary success in Perpignan. Whilst I agree with expansion, the point you are trying to make here dosn't hold water or dividends. It is interesting to note that the sucess is in a small city and the one big city that was tried, Paris, was an abject failure and London isn't doing too well either.

5. You should read 1984. You are rewriting history to suit your side of the story. SL was created as a direct competitor to Kerry Packer so that Murdoch could twist his arm in Australia by having the international side of things signed up and so Packer couldn't prempt him over in the UK. The game in the UK owes it;'s survival to a conflict in Australasia between two Australian multi millionaires. Do you think Murdoch said to himself " Oh those poor old boys in RL in the UK are in real trouble, let me be a philanthopist and help them out but only if they make sure each club averages 10,000." B****t.

6. Now we are in a position to combine the present and the past for the good of the future.

Sky needs us now. We are an integral part of their programming. We pull in good ratings. However, the money is not enough to sustain, full time, pro clubs at the present level. We can re vamp, restructure, whatever you want to call it, and operate at a sustainable lower level. The product will still be there for Sky and we can still allow expansion of our top tier for teams that cannot average 10,000. This is our level, this is where we operate best and fanciful dreams of clubs the size of Man U or Chelsea, can be relegated to fantasyland.

1. My point is they deserve to be a credit to SL. That is why they have struggled so hard to get to this point, not to operate in the championships.

2. SL is collapsing of it's own weight. It dosn't need any help from me. That's why they are "restructuring". I thought your argument against elevating Championship clubs to SL was because the Sky money is not enough to sustain a SL club by itself. You can't have it both ways. Either it's subsidised so teams can suceed there or it;'s not subsidised enough, so they can"t. Which way do you want to jump ?

3. You should read 1984.

4. Sky needs us now.

1. What's wrong with the Championships? Why do people see the Championships in such a bad light??

2. SL is not "collapsing" how can a dozen or more clubs with a limit to expenditure, high crowds, capable businessmen at the helm, and a multi-million pound subsidy collapse?

It can't collapse can it.

3. The works of Orwell are irrelevant to Professional RL.

4. Do they. I don't think so.

Now answer the question - SL clubs will still run on £4M+ turnovers after SL restructuring and Championship clubs will still run on less than £1M turnovers. How on earth do you work out that some sort of parity between SL and CC is imminent?

1. What's wrong with the Championships? Why do people see the Championships in such a bad light??

2. SL is not "collapsing" how can a dozen or more clubs with a limit to expenditure, high crowds, capable businessmen at the helm, and a multi-million pound subsidy collapse?

It can't collapse can it.

3. The works of Orwell are irrelevant to Professional RL.4. Do they. I don't think so.

Now answer the question - SL clubs will still run on £4M+ turnovers after SL restructuring and Championship clubs will still run on less than £1M turnovers. How on earth do you work out that some sort of parity between SL and CC is imminent?

Explain the logic on how that £3,000,000 gap would narrow.....

Until you do that we cannot progress the debate.

1.All the money is in SL. It s the normal state of human affairs to want to work/ perform/aspire to the highest levels that one can.

2.I think you are joking arn t you. Bradford went bust. Castleford are close. Hull KR have money troubles. Salford have money troubles. The Widnes owner refuses to bankroll any further progress and their attendances did not grow as anticipated. Owners are calling for restructuring and salary cap changes. The SL cannot afford to run reserve teams and are farming out players to CC clubs. I think they can collapse unless they drastically reduce their expenditures, which, for the most part, means player salaries.

3. Oh well, forget Orwell then but I thought there was a certain similarity between how the authorities in the book re wrote history to what you were attempting to do with your fairytale story of how Sky came riding to the rescue and in 1995 like a deus ex machina and rescued the game from oblivion from purely altuistic motives and then claiming that I want to return to the state the game was in prior to their arrival. In fact, as I stated, Sky came into the game because of a rich mans war over the game in Australia. The game was lucky.I have no desire to cast off Sky s money, nor to turn the clock back. You are re writing history and my views to prop up your arguments and cutting out the bits of my posts which you don t want to deal with. A familiar gtactic by now but no less annoying for all that.

4. You don t think that RL is now a staple of Skys broadcasting content and that they are happy with the ratings it brings in even in non RL areas and that the game has value to them as an important segment of their broadcasting. Ok, if that s the way you feel, then we must agree to disagree on that point.

On the turnover matter with which you are obsessed, I have the following observations.

A If SL restructures and the salary cap is revamped and the clubs who are now spending the maximum but cannot afford to have to spend less to survive then their budget and that of a Championship club will be closer to parity tahn they are now. If you add in the Sky money any CC club will get on elevation to SL, then this narrows the gap even further. If you add on the extra gate receipts and sponsorship a CC might receive from entering Sl then the gap narrows again.

I never said there would be parity, i said they would be closer to it. That is simple arithmetic.

If that is not good enough then declare yourself the winner and goodnight.

1. The SL cannot afford to run reserve teams and are farming out players to CC clubs. I think they can collapse unless they drastically reduce their expenditures, which, for the most part, means player salaries.

2. If SL restructures and the salary cap is revamped and the clubs who are now spending the maximum but cannot afford to have to spend less to survive then their budget and that of a Championship club will be closer to parity than they are now. If you add in the Sky money any CC club will get on elevation to SL, then this narrows the gap even further. If you add on the extra gate receipts and sponsorship a CC might receive from entering Sl then the gap narrows again.

2. Any restructure reducing the SL by two clubs will see the other clubs retain £4M+ turnovers and cut losses if not go into profit/break even.

Now once again how do the Championship clubs on sub £1M turnovers get any closer to the remaining 12 SL clubs on £4M plus turnovers?? The £3M+ gap isn't closed by SKY money and two thousand more fans. The £3M gap is being generous, the difference (staying on topic) between Sheffield and Catalans turnover has been quoted and being more like £4M.

The fundamantal disagreements you and I have always comes down to inclusion versus exclusion. You feel that the league will go to 12 clubs and exclude the rest. Have you seen Halifax's stadium, Leigh's stadium, Featherstone,s amazing progress in recent years and ditto for Sheffield.

The permanent exclusion of these clubs from SL will spell their doom. The 12 teams left in SL will be too small a critical mass to sustain the game for long. When London fail if/when Mr Hughes has had enough and if Toulouse fail to live up to the hype, we could be down to 10 clubs and with no replacements in sight. If Bradford fail to recreate 15,000 attendances and the burden of finances and the stadium is too much for the new owner, then we would be down to nine. Maybe Sky would be happy with Saints V Wigan and Leeds v Huddersfield every two weeks as their premier attractions, but I doubt it.

There is strength in numbers but the present policies seem designed to cater to the minimum numbers necessary to operate a viable competition.

The fact that, as you allude to in your post, Mr Glover is calling for a review of the salary cap, suggests that the current levels of spending are not sustainable for many of the current SL clubs. If, as you infer, the day of the sugar daddy is over, then this situation will only get worse and even Hull, Wakefield and Huddersfield will be in trouble.

I think we have aimed for a highly paid fully professional league and it has proved a bridge to far and the financial realities are now coming home to roost.

The review of the game to which you refer might surprise you and come to that very conclusion.

The solution might be to cut our cloth to suit our circumstances and lower the salary cap or at least have the clubs not necessarily spending to the max unless they can sustain that level of investment.

This might pave the way for many of the deserving clubs on your excluded list to join the party and enable the top level of the league to expand. You know I am a firm believer in the Conference system as a way to incorporate more teams into the top tier of the game. If we spent less, we could split the Sky money more ways or even, heavens above, prise a bit more out of them.

The strength of the game is, and always has been, in towns and medium sized cities. The mega club scenario seemingly envisaged for RL is just not possible. Soccer has cornered the market in the big cities. The game needs to stick with it's historical strengths and nurture as many of it's strongholds as possible, not marginalise and kill them off.

The SL concept has reached a crossroads. We need to downsize the payrolls to stabilize it's very existence. At the same time we need to expand the reach of the top division both numerically in the traditional heartlands by not excluding deserving teams and geographically by expansion as and where possible.

This 10,000 average crowd thing is a fallacy. We have never been able to have numerous teams with that level of crowds ( except maybe in the post WW11 boom ) in the history of the game. The game needs to restructure and cut wages to the point whereby clubs can compete and thrive on average crowds of 5,000 and up.

The present power brokers will inevitably end up at the top but it has never been any different and occasionally the balance of power will alter and a new team will rise up to join the top table.

Oh, by the way, the review called for by Mr Watkins, included revisiting p and r. Oh, my god, the sky is falling, the sky is falling.

Anyway, in my view, if you persevere with a smaller, closed shop, SL with two or more teams in France, diminishing the British membership even more, it will end in disaster. The more clubs we can save by admitting them to the top table, then the better the long term prospects for the game will be. Contraction is a negative policy and will end in stagnation.

Is this not in line with the RFL feeder policy?

Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.

2. Any restructure reducing the SL by two clubs will see the other clubs retain £4M+ turnovers and cut losses if not go into profit/break even.

Now once again how do the Championship clubs on sub £1M turnovers get any closer to the remaining 12 SL clubs on £4M plus turnovers?? The £3M+ gap isn't closed by SKY money and two thousand more fans. The £3M gap is being generous, the difference (staying on topic) between Sheffield and Catalans turnover has been quoted and being more like £4M.

Square that??

1.Bradford, Castleford, Salford and that s just this season. Scrapping reserve teams, you had better hope you are right but it does not look too promising.

2.How did Castleford, Huddersfield, Hull KR, Wakefield, Widnes and Catalans do it? They all made the jump from lower division rugby league to SL. How are Toulouse going to do it ? Despite all your bean counting about turnover, there are numerous examples of the the gap being bridged.

3.It is difficult however to make the jump from CC to SL. It is also obvious that it is getting harder and harder to sustain the current expenditures needed to run a SL team. There is a need to restructure SL. Your take on that is to reduce the number of teams to share the pot with a lesser number of teams.

Who will make the decision on which teams to drop. There will be internecine war on that move. Lawyers will get rich.

Do you think Sky will be happy with a reduced footprint for the game and the consequent loss of susbribers and then advertisers.?

I feel it would be better to reduce expenditures and get by on less, but retain the same number of teams as at present. This culture of reducing the size and footprint of our game which is the current fad is a dangerous game. After it has been done, there will still be weaker sisters, not the same ones as before, but weaker nevertheless. Are you going to downsize further to solve that problem ?. What is the minimum size league which can provide a viable competition?

It would be far better to reduce players salaries to affordable levels for the smaller teams. This would also make it easier for new entrants to bridge the gap. IF full time professionalism is not capable of being supported, then so be it. It can always return when the circumstances dictate.,

I strongly believe that contraction is a sign of failure. The game needs to be bigger not smaller. If this is not the case, why has all the emphasis been on expansion these last many years.

2.How did Castleford, Huddersfield, Hull KR, Wakefield, Widnes and Catalans do it? They all made the jump from lower division rugby league to SL. How are Toulouse going to do it ?

3. Despite all your bean counting about turnover, there are numerous examples of the the gap being bridged.

4. Who will make the decision on which teams to drop. There will be internecine war on that move. Lawyers will get rich.

5. Do you think Sky will be happy with a reduced footprint for the game and the consequent loss of susbribers and then advertisers.?

6. Are you going to downsize further to solve that problem ?. What is the minimum size league which can provide a viable competition?

7. It would be far better to reduce players salaries to affordable levels for the smaller teams.

8. This would also make it easier for new entrants to bridge the gap.

9. IF full time professionalism is not capable of being supported, then so be it. It can always return when the circumstances dictate.,

10. I strongly believe that contraction is a sign of failure.

11. If this is not the case, why has all the emphasis been on expansion these last many years.

1. They did but as I said SUPERLEAGUE did not collapse and Bradford are up and running again.

2. They all did it with MONEY Cas were a pro club when they dropped for one season and stayed as such. Wakey went bust then Glover saved them.

Nobody does it without MONEY. Nobody has bridged the gap and succeeded without either being a big club or having oodles of mazuma like Fartown.

3. Not without money and cut the "bean counting jibes" It's a fundamental question you can't answer - how do clubs on a -£1M turnover get to a +£4M turnover.

you have singularly failed to tell me this.

4. SLE/RFL will decide, forget Lawyers there's not one been near the situation and they have no chance anyway. Where was keighley's lawyer in 1996? Stood next to that rich sponsor was he?

5. SKY were perfectly happy with 12 clubs 14 was the RFL's experiment.

6. Minimum 10 but 12 will be easy to sort out.

7. Oh here we go this is soooo obvious. Downsize the teams at the bottom of SL so that CC clubs can they play yo yo with them.

No way - an elite evenly contested competition is the policy aim.

8 Whoops - here it is again and guess what, CC clubs can get promoted now.

9. YOU WISH it IS capable of being supported. If it wasn't and we returned to part time RL is dead as a serious sport.

10. No you don't because the extra two clubs was an experiment.

11. Expansion is was and remains a way to find new players and fans.

You got to get it into your head that there are not enough players and fans to sustain 32 pro/semi pro RL clubs any more.

Lyndsay was right.

Listen to mr. Sheddings. Oldham play in a very poor ground, and pay their players less than amateurs.

1952 is not coming back.

What i feel you need to do is to look to your own club, and it's place in a 14 club Championship and concentrate on that. If the new CC can run to a salary cap all can afford you may see keighley actually start to get near winning things. Surely this is better than dreaming of SL collapsing?

I'm not dreaming of SL collpasing. There's a new chapter of that book being written every month. Look at what is happening. Look at the unsustainable debts, look at the the calls for restructuring, cutting reserve teams. Look at the number of teams in difficulty.

1. I'm not dreaming of SL collpasing. There's a new chapter of that book being written every month. Look at what is happening. Look at the unsustainable debts, look at the the calls for restructuring, cutting reserve teams. Look at the number of teams in difficulty. Don't stand there and tell me all is hunky dory in SL.

1. For goodness sake. I never ever ever said "All is hunky dory in SL" did I?? Why make that up and accuse me of being wrong to say it. Don't gloss over this point tell me why?

2. There never was a fully profitable pro RL and if there had have been they'd have raied the salary cap and there still would be no fully profitable RL.

Superleague since 1996 has.....

a. Raised it's turnover considerablyb. Raised the profile of RL in this countryc. Inspired the amateur and junior game to be played outside the M62d. Developed more and more professional players from across the country and into Francee. Massively raised crowds in the top divisionf. Fended off Union....

Now why don't you "look at that" then????

14 clubs was an ambition too far of course it was, but this is the problem, too many clubs want to be in Superleague and when they get there they can't hack it. They don't get the fans they project, they don't get the performances from the players, they don't like making up the wages.

Maurice Lyndsay wanted everyone to get together and organise a profitable professional Elite league to secure the SKY TV contract. In business terms where we have got to in 17 years is an utter shambles, and too many selfish interests have held the game back.

Yet it's still here and at it's best it's magnificent, and yes the SKY money is still here and yes there are problems to work on. The game is several million on the wrong side of break even. Dump two of the losers you cut the losses and raise the SKY share up, use the Championship for the under 23 and you save over a million, get some space between clubs and you will get more fans at the clubs who remain in SL. Work towards a french TV deal.

And if that doesn't quite do it then SKY would be fools not to give us a bit more so both parties are happy. If they don't the cap will have to come down a bit.

But you don't like "bean counting" you denigrate it. Is this because a 12 club SL pulling together adds up?

AND ANYWAY let's say things all collapse in SL as the vultures on here like to wish for. What then for the game - time for you to tell me that because you keep ignoring it.

1. For goodness sake. I never ever ever said "All is hunky dory in SL" did I?? Why make that up and accuse me of being wrong to say it. Don't gloss over this point tell me why?

2. There never was a fully profitable pro RL and if there had have been they'd have raied the salary cap and there still would be no fully profitable RL.

Superleague since 1996 has.....

a. Raised it's turnover considerablyb. Raised the profile of RL in this countryc. Inspired the amateur and junior game to be played outside the M62d. Developed more and more professional players from across the country and into Francee. Massively raised crowds in the top divisionf. Fended off Union....

Now why don't you "look at that" then????

14 clubs was an ambition too far of course it was, but this is the problem, too many clubs want to be in Superleague and when they get there they can't hack it. They don't get the fans they project, they don't get the performances from the players, they don't like making up the wages.

Maurice Lyndsay wanted everyone to get together and organise a profitable professional Elite league to secure the SKY TV contract. In business terms where we have got to in 17 years is an utter shambles, and too many selfish interests have held the game back.

Yet it's still here and at it's best it's magnificent, and yes the SKY money is still here and yes there are problems to work on. The game is several million on the wrong side of break even. Dump two of the losers you cut the losses and raise the SKY share up, use the Championship for the under 23 and you save over a million, get some space between clubs and you will get more fans at the clubs who remain in SL. Work towards a french TV deal.

And if that doesn't quite do it then SKY would be fools not to give us a bit more so both parties are happy. If they don't the cap will have to come down a bit.

But you don't like "bean counting" you denigrate it. Is this because a 12 club SL pulling together adds up?

AND ANYWAY let's say things all collapse in SL as the vultures on here like to wish for. What then for the game - time for you to tell me that because you keep ignoring it.

1. You deny saying that you think all is well with SL but then in point 2 of your post, you list a litany of successes of SL. You apparently do think SL is a roaring success.2. No there hasn';t ever been a fully profitable or even a remotely fully profitable or, in fact, anything which even faintly resembles a profitable SL. However, if we don't get a lot closer to a profitable operation, there will be "touble at t mill", big time.as to your laundry list.I will agree with a, e and f. Of the remainderb. This is not true. Since we went to Sky and dumped terrestrial TV, e.g. the players trophy and most internationals, the profile of RL has vastly decreased. There is no comparison with the exposure on Sky TV compared to the BBC. The BBC is hundreds of time bigger in the exposure league than Sky. Do not interprt this as me saying that I do not value the Sky coverage because I do. The monet from themn is vital BUT in terms of exposure, Sky has reduced the profile of the game in this country.c. This is patently false. The game is played all over the country due to the initiative of Lionel Hurst and thereafter the RFL and the growth of the Summer Conference league and then the appointment of development officers nationwide due to the Sports England wwindfall. SL had very little if anything to do with this.d. I am not so sure they have developed more amd more professional players from all across the country. Firstly, many hundreds, if not thousands, of professional players were recruited from Australasia. This was even more true in France, than England. The other professional players produced were, as always, introduced to the game via the amateur ranks and any gems uncovered were hoovered up by SL clubs.3. the number of clubs being too great at 14.I disagree with this also. It is not the number of clubs that is the problem, it is the level of finance and cash that is needed to successfully and, god willing, profitably operate.The bar has been set too high. We need to pay less so as to enable us to break even in more places. It's no good having 6 five star hotels when you can have a motel in every town in the country for less and still attract guests.Reducing the numbers to give more cash to Wigan, Leeds or Saints is not the answer. Reducing the numbers sneds out a message of failure. Every mega business, Woolworth comes to mind, cuts out huge numbers of branches when they start to fail. We should not go down that road unless we really are seriously declining.Maurice Lyndsay was a typical greedy, grasping business tycoon. He wanted to have less clubs so that there was more pie to divvy up with his cronies at the top clubs. He was not doing it to satisfy Murdoch. Murdoch wanted our game in his pocket to put Kerry Packer to the sword in the SL war back in Australia. He was so hot to do that that when the clubs initially balked, especially those who were going to be excluded from SL, he immediately, without a murmur, coughed up extra millions to placate the clubs and seal the deal.Have you considered what you propose, i.e ditch two SL clubs, turn the championship clubs into parasites. In short, decimate the whole of width and breadth of RL to enable SL to spend more than it can afford or to enable it to function for the sake of 12 clubs. It took RU 50 years to claw back the losses form the great split. Casting teams out is a bad strategy. It is better to lower your expenses to enable existing clubs to function. Expansion and holding the line is good. Contraction is bad for the many for the benefit of the few.I would be delighted if SKY coughed up more cash. I think they possibly could. However, whenever I have ever suggested this previously, you have strenuously argue that there was noo wat they would ever do so. You need to be consistent.Lastly, nobody wants SL to collapse. It would be the death knell of the game. I don't think anyone on these boards wants that. It's to avoid that specifically that I am saying, if we can't afford to operate at current levels, we must reduce our costs to the point where we can at the very least break even. My feeling is that you are a professional in a financial field. If so, you should know very well that we cannot keep on vastly overspending and getting further into the mire year after year but you seem to advocate that. Cost cutting to save the game seems to be an anathma